Republicans Strip 'No War Profiteering' Section

Republicans Strip 'No War Profiteering' Section from
$87 Billion Iraq Bill
Klaus Marre
The Hill (Washington DC)
http://www.thehill.com/news/110503/profiteering.aspx
Posted 11/6/2003

November 5, 2003, Summary: This article should be the top of the news on TV and newspapers all over the
world. The White House and the House Republicans took out a section of a bill that would have imposed stiff penalties for war profiteering. With one-party rule in Washington, there will be no oversight (and no
penalties) if anyone steals any (or all) of the $87
billion dollars President George Bush wants to spend on the US - Iraq War ...
Rage erupts over profiteering clause
Iraq supplemental justified, says GOP

A decision by the House Republicans to strip the Iraq
supplemental bill of an anti-profiteering provision has
outraged the Democrats.Some Democrats have accused the White House of pulling the strings on the effort to nix the language.

“The White House and House GOP leadership didn’t want [the provision] in there,” charged Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), an author of the language.The provision — included during the Senate

Appropriations Committee markup with unanimous support but removed in conference — would have subjected those who deliberately defrauded the United States or Iraq to jail terms of up to 20 years and costly fines.Leahy said that, privately, some Republicans told him they though it was a good provision.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), another author of the
profiteering provision, called it “shocking” that it
was taken out. “Why?” Feinstein asked. “It was a good
amendment.”A Senate Democratic aide said, “Several House Republican conferees were clearly empathetic, but they had to look to a higher authority. That higher
authority was the White House, which had sent the
marching order to strip this from the bill.”

Another Democratic aide said that “the White House got to House Republicans.” The aide pointed to Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner’s (R-Wis.)

support for the provision — the lawmaker chairs the
authorizing committee but was not a member of the
conference — and the unwillingness of House Republicans to compromise on the language as evidence that the top

White House staff may have given the marching orders.Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), at a Monday hearing of the Democratic Policy Committee, claimed that it does not look as if the White House wanted any oversight on reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

During an Oct. 29 meeting of the conference committee, Leahy advocated a “very, very high standard” for its use, saying it should be applied only in the most egregious cases.

He said the language sends the message not to “rip off Uncle Sam.” Leahy added that he believes with the
amount of money flowing into Iraq, “there will be a lot
of greedy fingers.”

Leahy indicated that he was willing to compromise on
the provision. He agreed to include a firm sunset
provision advocated by Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska).
Stevens, Democratic aides said, was very supportive of the provision throughout the conference committee
process.

However, in conference, House Republicans spurned any compromises. Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) said he was “uneasy” about adding this kind of criminal law without input from the White House and the Department of Justice.

House Appropriations Committee spokesman John Scofield said other reasons for rejecting the provision included that it would have also applied to international assistance and that it did not define what constitutes “excessive profiteering.”

Leahy this week introduced stand-alone legislation
targeting war profiteering. However, if it passed, it would go into effect later than the supplemental and would not cover the upcoming time period, thus lessening its effectiveness.
Leahy said yesterday it would be “a long road” before
the stand-alone legislation is completed.
Leahy’s measure would slap penalties on those who
“materially [overvalue] any good or service with the
specific intent to excessively profit from the war,
military action, or relief or reconstruction activities
in Iraq.”

At a Democratic Policy Committee hearing, Melanie
Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington,
testified that “Halliburton [formerly headed by Vice
President Dick Cheney] has charged an average price of $2.65 a gallon of gasoline imported into Iraq from
Kuwait, despite experts’ conclusions that the total
price should be less than $1 a gallon.”

Sloan added that Iraq’s state oil company is importing
“the exact same gas” for 97 cents. She concluded that
between $286 million and $339 million of the $900
million the administration has requested for the
importation of petroleum products could be wasted “if
Halliburton’s pricing practices are not stopped.”
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who chaired the hearing,
said, “Is there anything more ironic than getting
ripped off on the price of oil imports in Iraq, of all
places?”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said at the hearing that
following passage of the Iraq supplemental bill there
would be a “festive atmosphere on K Street.”
Durbin said the Iraq spending bill opens the door for
“fat and sloppy good-old-boy contracts.” The lawmaker
said that those seeking greater transparency were
unable to examine many contracts because they are
classified. Asserting that this has nothing to do with
security, Durbin added, “This administration classifies
anything that might be embarrassing.”

While it was House Republicans who wanted the
profiteering provision stripped out in conference,
Durbin pointed out that Senate Republicans, who had
supported the provision in committee and on the floor,
“did not stand up and fight” for the language.

Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), in an interview with The
Hill, defended Senate conferees. “If the House says no, we can’t do anything about it. We can’t dump the whole bill just because [a provision on profiteering] isn’t included.” Domenici added that some thought the
amendment was written in a “political way.”
Other attempts by Congress to require more
accountability for spending the money, especially the
reconstruction funds, were for the most part watered
down or removed.The White House staff did not respond to a request for

comment.